Gentleman, give it to me straight, do you think the sky is falling? - Page 7

Bond18 · #61 02-09-2007, 03:35 PM

registrar isn't a "we know better than you for you" policy a disturbing move towards an overly controlling government?

Are you really THAT comfortable being told what you can bet on, who you can sleep with, and what your allowed to drink?

Seriously?

registrar · #62 02-09-2007, 03:53 PM

[ QUOTE ]
registrar isn't a "we know better than you for you" policy a disturbing move towards an overly controlling government?

Are you really THAT comfortable being told what you can bet on, who you can sleep with, and what your allowed to drink?

Seriously?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I've always been pretty comfortable being told what I can't do and then doing it anyway. My point is that the accessibility of 'vice' should be restricted. When I've had unlimited access to booze, drugs and poker, I've indulged myself too much and most people are like me. With cigarettes, for example, I'd find it a lot easier to quit if they weren't available on every street corner. And I do want to quit.

We can always get laid, high, drunk or whatever, if we really want to and that's cool. Well, I always thought it was pretty cool but every time it's been right there in front of me, unlimited, I've done too much. That's just human nature or many, many human's nature.

Up until 15 years ago, the UK was pretty puritanical about all these things. Alcohol licensing was very restrictive, you actually worried about buying and consuming drugs, poker was a game that mobsters played and there was no lottery. I think, in consequential and not theoretical terms, it's pretty hard to take a line that the relaxation in all of these areas has been positive for society as a whole. Even, in fact, for the individual: I think I enjoyed all of these things a lot more when I couldn't get hold of them all the time.

Now, excuse me while I have a joint, drink a glass of wine and settle down to play some poker.

EvanJC · #63 02-09-2007, 04:00 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
registrar isn't a "we know better than you for you" policy a disturbing move towards an overly controlling government?

Are you really THAT comfortable being told what you can bet on, who you can sleep with, and what your allowed to drink?

Seriously?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I've always been pretty comfortable being told what I can't do and then doing it anyway. My point is that the accessibility of 'vice' should be restricted. When I've had unlimited access to booze, drugs and poker, I've indulged myself too much and most people are like me. With cigarettes, for example, I'd find it a lot easier to quit if they weren't available on every street corner. And I do want to quit.

We can always get laid, high, drunk or whatever, if we really want to and that's cool. Well, I always thought it was pretty cool but every time it's been right there in front of me, unlimited, I've done too much. That's just human nature or many, many human's nature.

Up until 15 years ago, the UK was pretty puritanical about all these things. Alcohol licensing was very restrictive, you actually worried about buying and consuming drugs, poker was a game that mobsters played and there was no lottery. I think, in consequential and not theoretical terms, it's pretty hard to take a line that the relaxation in all of these areas has been positive for society as a whole. Even, in fact, for the individual: I think I enjoyed all of these things a lot more when I couldn't get hold of them all the time.

Now, excuse me while I have a joint, drink a glass of wine and settle down to play some poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

it sounds like what you're saying is that you somewhat enjoy the fact that you're breaking the law and being 'bad' by doing these things. this is an argument for deregulation if i've ever heard one.

Bond18 · #64 02-09-2007, 04:02 PM

Well i guess my next question would be then, do you think its fair that those of us who enjoy "vices" in a healthy moderation to be punished for people like yours over indulgence?

Doesn't the responsibility fall on you for your decesions, and when you think hard about it, wouldn't you really prefer being allowed to make those decesions, be they mistakes, and find out for yourself then have someone tell you who may not know what your capable of tell you your not responsible enough?

Jurollo · #65 02-09-2007, 04:10 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
registrar isn't a "we know better than you for you" policy a disturbing move towards an overly controlling government?

Are you really THAT comfortable being told what you can bet on, who you can sleep with, and what your allowed to drink?

Seriously?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I've always been pretty comfortable being told what I can't do and then doing it anyway. My point is that the accessibility of 'vice' should be restricted. When I've had unlimited access to booze, drugs and poker, I've indulged myself too much and most people are like me. With cigarettes, for example, I'd find it a lot easier to quit if they weren't available on every street corner. And I do want to quit.

We can always get laid, high, drunk or whatever, if we really want to and that's cool. Well, I always thought it was pretty cool but every time it's been right there in front of me, unlimited, I've done too much. That's just human nature or many, many human's nature.

Up until 15 years ago, the UK was pretty puritanical about all these things. Alcohol licensing was very restrictive, you actually worried about buying and consuming drugs, poker was a game that mobsters played and there was no lottery. I think, in consequential and not theoretical terms, it's pretty hard to take a line that the relaxation in all of these areas has been positive for society as a whole. Even, in fact, for the individual: I think I enjoyed all of these things a lot more when I couldn't get hold of them all the time.

Now, excuse me while I have a joint, drink a glass of wine and settle down to play some poker.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is wrong on so many different levels.

registrar · #66 02-09-2007, 04:13 PM

The point of the poker boom is surely that it is fuelled by people who can't enjoy the vice in healthy moderation?

uclabruinz · #67 02-09-2007, 04:15 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The point of the poker boom is surely that it is fuelled by people who can't enjoy the vice in healthy moderation?

[/ QUOTE ]

False. Those people are just one part, a small minority. Mostly it was fueled by your everyday competitive Joes that love everything the game was being advertised as, and had no problem putting a little "entertainment" money (really no different then spending a chunk on golf every week) toward the game with an outside chance of being the next Chris Moneymaker. I doubt many of these guys ended up bankrupt and in rehab after losing their homes.

Jurollo · #68 02-09-2007, 04:16 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The point of the poker boom is surely that it is fuelled by people who can't enjoy the vice in healthy moderation?

[/ QUOTE ]

False. Those people are just one part, a small minority. Mostly it was fueled by your everyday competitive Joes that love everything the game was being advertised as, and had no problem putting a little "entertainment" money (really no different then spending a chunk on golf every week) toward the game with an outside chance of being the next Chris Moneymaker. I doubt many of these guys ended up bankrupt and in rehab after losing their homes.

[/ QUOTE ]
I was JUST typing this out and reloaded in another window!

registrar · #69 02-09-2007, 04:21 PM

Jurollo,

I'm not expecting the mod of a poker players's forum to endorse the argument but you can at least argue the point.

My main point is that, IMO, the sky is falling in because the point of the actions of the State is to restrict online poker. And UCLA is right: it doesn't stop here.

Naturally, this kind of sucks. I used to be a very profitable player. Now I'm better and I'm marginally profitable.

The secondary point is that societies always legislate against or otherwise restrict gambling and this is for a reason and I tend to agree with these reasons for the reasons I've outlined.

I'm enough of a hyprocrite that I do many things I condone but, on a wider level, I don't think it makes life better, mine or society's at large.

registrar · #70 02-09-2007, 04:31 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The point of the poker boom is surely that it is fuelled by people who can't enjoy the vice in healthy moderation?

[/ QUOTE ]

False. Those people are just one part, a small minority. Mostly it was fueled by your everyday competitive Joes that love everything the game was being advertised as, and had no problem putting a little "entertainment" money (really no different then spending a chunk on golf every week) toward the game with an outside chance of being the next Chris Moneymaker. I doubt many of these guys ended up bankrupt and in rehab after losing their homes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough, if this is what you guys believe. And to be honest, I don't know. I used to think this and then I started checking my opponents on OPR and realised that many more people were shipping much more money than I had realised.

If it's money they can afford and everyone benefits, well, that's just fine.

I'm more banging a drum about my own country. I've not been to LV or Atlantic City - maybe these things are good. But I do believe that human activities that are generally described as vice have historically been proscribed for good reason.